By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The Reptile approach to courtroom persuasion aims to sell plaintiffs’ cases by invoking absolute duties for protection wrapped around a fear appeal that resonates with the jurors. Even with the Reptile’s ‘reboot’ version, the ‘Edge’ training appears to continue this emphasis. In a second part of an article in the CLM […]
As the Reptile Evolves, Update Your Understanding of ‘Duty’ Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Recently, civil defendants have been interested in a new label: “Safetyism.” The idea focuses on a pervasive and increasing attitude in the jury-eligible population that demands unrealistic standards when it comes to protecting customers, patients, and the general public. The name, I think, might be a little deceptive, because it isn’t
(Safely) Combat Safety Absolutism Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: In my work, I get to watch many attorneys go through the practical rituals of jury selection. A big part of the job is looking for, setting up, and executing challenges for cause when there are reasons to doubt potential jurors’ ability to be fair in following the law and the
Fish for a Good Cause Challenge Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Seems like Americans have had it with powerful institutions lately. The organizations that have long structured our civic life have reached new lows in terms of trust, and this applies to many that have historically garnered relatively high levels of confidence. Higher education is at a historic low, and trust in
Account for Broken Trust in Institutions Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: There is a perspective on juror attitudes that has been receiving some attention lately. “Safetyism” refers to an individual’s tendency to not merely prefer safety, but to demand unrealistic standards of protection — no errors, no risk of injury, no chance of a bad outcome, no ‘safe level’ of a contaminant,
Counter “Safetyism” With Realism Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: I suspect there has never been any great love affair between attorneys in general and the jury pool. Jurors know that lawyers are there to influence them toward a desired result, and that’s typically met with suspicion. Similarly, corporate defendants also don’t tend to make a jury’s list of favorites. We’ve
Lawyers and Corporate Defendants – Expect a Little More Hostility from the Jury Box Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: It’s one of the central contradictions of the law: we ask for and expect neutral and unbiased decision makers…and then we end up using humans. Those human fact-finders are almost inevitably going to have an individual form of perception or some level of partiality or bias. When it comes to the
Assess and Address Bias Using Four Steps Read More »
By Ken Broda-Bahm: It hasn’t been the easiest year for America’s railroad companies. Last Fall, in the midst of an inflationary panic, a national rail strike threatened to disrupt the nation’s shipping system, before that was resolved through a combination of Presidential carrots and sticks. But that was all eclipsed just a few months later,
Expect Skepticism (and Some Support) for Railroads Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Everyone supports safety. The popular “Reptile” approach to trying plaintiffs’ cases is built on the strength of safety as a core value. It is a common sense attitude to prefers greater security over greater risk. But there is also an extreme version of that attitude – a version that tolerates zero
Voir Dire for “Safetyist” Attitudes Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Trump’s second indictment is now unsealed, this one framing 37 federal felony counts for willfully retaining classified records at his private residence, and for trying to obstruct the efforts of the FBI and others in trying to recover these documents. Predictably, the response from the former President’s supporters has been to
Fight False Equivalence (and Other ‘Low Effort’ Arguments) Read More »